Anddenex

This.

This whole thing seems to miss a very important point: there is no right to be not discriminated against except by the government. Anyone should be able to discriminate against anyone else for any reason whatsoever.
If I were driving from Reno to Tooele, and had a blowout five miles from Carlin, NV, and the owner of the only tire store there didn't like left-handed people, or Saints, or old guys, I'd rather walk to Elko than use the government to force the bigot to serve me. It's his natural right to refuse me service.
The federal government is the only thing limited by the Constitution (except for a few restrictions on the states and a very few on individuals). Freedom of assembly and association (whether mentioned in the Document or not — see amendment IX) are anyone's God-given right. The government has no legitimate interest in forcing a tire dealer to put tires on my car.
Even less does it have the legitimate interest in forcing a school, a church, a men's club, or a pizza parlor to serve anyone who walks through the door. They, these entrants, have no right to service.
I would have liked Johnson better than Trump and far  better than the Hildebeast except for this Freudian slip. The so-called LGBTQRSTUV movement has no legitimate reason to turn to the government to force any entity or any person to meet their demands. They can find another baker, another photographer, another pizza parlor or another preacher to serve them. They're out there. And, even if they were not, there is nothing in the Constitution, nor in any natural law that allows government to step in and force one man to break his vows or ignore his beliefs or trample on his own faith (or even his bigotry).
The fact that LGBTQRSTUVs can turn to government is just another indicator that the government has long since overstepped its legitimate bounds. It's too big, too intrusive, and too, far too, expensive in both financial and other ways. We are serfs, tax slaves, money cattle, and nothing else to our masters in Washington, and Sacramento, and Denver, and Albany, and Augusta, and Austin.
Lehi

I didn't confuse anything (inside my mind).  I declined to accept the liberals attempting to restrict the meaning of the word and thereby limit the conversation, as if all forms of discrimination are bad.  See @Carborendum's reply for the rest of that.  But I'll add an example: the LGBT folk (would) say that the Church refusing to baptize, seal, endow, etc. practicing homosexuals is unjust and prejudicial.  They're right (depending on how eternal or worldly you want your definition of "unjust" to be), and we have every right to be unjust and prejudicial in this regard - we have a moral obligation to discriminate in this regard.  (You could apply that same example to the Ordain Women folk.)

Beating Trump in Utah, yes; but that's another thread.  (Several other threads, actually; and most of them didn't end well . . .   )

Alright zil, please stop with the wise wisdom and making statements that actually make sense...the natural man doesn't like it

Yes, let's face it, the mere act of having standards is a form of discrimination.  Laws against murder (as long as we're going to extremes) are a form of discrimination.  Sometimes, we need to discriminate.  A religion must be allowed to deny their rites, membership, and other privileges to someone who does not accept the corresponding beliefs; and to refuse to participate in things which conflict with their beliefs.  Otherwise, you have no religion.  Thus, some forms of discrimination must be allowed.

Agreed, similar to Polygamy. There is a higher principle, law, at play which determines the acceptance or removal of said practice/policy, but it does not make the policy "wrong" as some appear to often suggest when making the argument "It is not doctrine, it is policy/practice."

I disagree.  Banning speech is anti-American.
Let them have their Satan Club.

No, a soul does not get a second chance after Judgement Day.  However, before Judgement Day the spirits in Spirit Prison will have an opportunity to accept the Gospel.  This is an elementary part of the Plan of Salvation.

First, for the living, one point of doing proxy ordinances is to obey the Lord.  Whether your father accepts the ordinances will not alter whether you have obeyed.  Another reason (I think) is to enable the dead to choose (you cannot choose to accept an ordinance that was never done).  Whether your father accepts the ordinances will not alter whether you have helped to give him a choice.
Second, we mortals cannot judge what constitutes someone's "chance" in mortality.  I expect we often think we can, and we often think it seems obvious, but I am not convinced it is so obvious as we think.
So, I think you should not give up on your father in life, and I think after he's gone, perhaps when the Spirit tells you or confirms it's right, you should do his work - to be obedient, to give him a choice, to show faith in the Savior's ability to change hearts even after death, and just in case your father's "chance" didn't end in mortality after all.

Driving a vehicle is not a right guaranteed in the Constitution; it is a privilege.  Owning and bearing arms is a right guaranteed by the Constitution, not a privilege.

Firearms are not "designed to kill people". They are designed to launch projectiles at whatever the users points them at. If the user points one at a person, it is the person who chooses to kill, not the firearm.
Further, while owning a firearm does not require taking classes and a test, having insurance, etc., neither does owning a car or truck. Even using a firearm or a truck does not require any of these, either, as witnessed by the inordinate number of people arrested for driving without a license or a revoked license (which, itself, indicates the criminal has demonstrated irresponsibility as a driver). So, we see that laws limiting the use of cars by the unlicensed do not stop unlicensed driving. Other laws do not stop speeding, failing to stop at stop signs/lights, or reckless driving of any sort.
How, then, would gun regulations stop evil people from misusing firearms?
The problem with this point of view is that any proposed gun regulation would do nothing to stop the very thing you and I and anyone else here hate. Your sister would be at the same risk with or without the gun control you desire. The issue is evil, not firearms. Evil, like truth, will out.
How about this: instead of banning guns so that good people cannot access them for legitimate purposes, we require that a high school diploma require 90% pass on still targets, 100% pass on a written test on proper firearm usage, and 90% on a fire-no fire range? You seem to think that classes make us safer behind the wheel; why not with firearms?
Lehi

Hello Reece,
This isn't an answer to your question; although it will be something to ponder relating to your question. All your questions have resulted from the disobedience of the sons and daughters of God since Adam and Eve bore their first child. If all of the sons and daughters of God, since Adam, loved the Lord more than they loved this world these type of questions would not exist. They exist as a result of disobedience. There wouldn't be a need for missionaries as all the sons and daughters would be members. There wouldn't be any thoughts regarding separated families (divorced) as this wouldn't have occurred.
When Adam first went out into the wilderness he was given a command. When the angel visiting asked why he followed, his response, I know not save the Lord commanded me. These are questions which will fall under the same category (because it has not been revealed" and individuals have been telling you what has been revealed. A merciful and loving God will work out all things, at this moment though, like Adam, we move forward -- although not knowing the whole purpose -- in light of what has been commanded knowing that God works everything out.
Returning back to the same questions, which cannot be adequately answered at this time, which means we move forward in faith knowing that at some time the questions will be answered and we will then know. Our responsibility is to move forward, like Adam and Eve, even when we do not know. That is faith. That is hope. That is charity toward God.

If I tell you that it is very important not to point a gun at your head and pull the trigger...  You have a choice... you can do it anyway because I did not explain why... or you can trust that I know what I am saying.
And you should be able to trust God a lot more then me and have Faith that he gives instructions for a reason.  Instead of belittling and thinking you with your limited information can out think God on what is important.

Our bishop gives candy or pretzels to kids after church.  They all go to the bishop's office to report what they learned that day and get the goods.  They report on fast Sunday but don't get the goodies.  It's cute to see the freshly-arrived-at-Sunbeams go to the bishop and say, "I learned it's fast Sunday today so we don't get candy."  LOL.
One of my kids get the candy and hand it to me so I get candy every Sunday... it's awesome to have a kid that don't like candy. 

Your memory is correct, but when Handbook 2 was updated in 2012 they took out the statement.  I think the old book said:
 
@zil provided what's in the handbook now.  In addition to that, on lds.org under primary leader resources FAQ ( https://www.lds.org/callings/primary/leader-resources/frequently-asked-questions?lang=eng&_r=1#food-in ) it says:
 
Also, from the "Primary 2: Choose the Right A" book (for CTR 4-7 classes) in the Helps For Teachers section at the beginning found at https://www.lds.org/manual/primary-2/helps-for-the-teacher?lang=eng
 

I do find it intriguing the splitting hairs of doctrine vs policy within Church members; however, I do understand also why it seems to always be pointed out, and yet the Word of Wisdom is doctrine, and within this doctrine there are practices which can either be removed or added upon. I just don't get the consistent need for individuals to distinguish (similar to other policies put forth -- it isn't doctrine -- nor was the Law of Moses at the time, it was a practice implemented by the Lord -- with punishments and blessing if not lived or lived).

As I understand it, the "policy versus doctrine" distinction is intended only to give us some guidance as to what Church practices hypothetically may change in the future--or have changed in the past.  It does not serve to justify noncompliance with a current Church practice.  I can canker my soul by violating a policy just as easily as by violating a doctrine.

Good point that the word of wisdom is technically doctrine.
Also, I think it is valuable to know at least at a high level the difference between policy and the eternal principles they are based on so one is not too surprised when policies change. 

When I read your post there appears to be come misunderstandings of the gospel (The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints). In order to make sure I have understood correctly I will reiterate what you have shared:
1) I was born into the covenant, got married civilly at 19 and in the 8 years we were married, we had 4 children....I would be giving up my maternal rights to them in the afterlife.
As you were born in the covenant you are sealed to your parents, and in the afterlife you will continue to be sealed to your parents if they remain faithful to the covenants they have made before God. As you were married civilly, you were never sealed to your children. There isn't any parental rights you would have in the afterlife, without the sealing covenant. It is the sealing that binds on earth and in heaven. It is the sealing that brings promised blessings, otherwise everything else is until death do we part. Our ability to biologically produce offspring isn't sufficient for any afterlife promises or blessings if we haven't done our part. This is similar to adoption. We have biological mothers and fathers and then adoptive parents who then are sealed to their adopted children. The biological parents will not receive any promises regarding their offspring in the afterlife.
2) I'm extremely torn up over this....A quick overview on my current beliefs- I'm still Christian, I still believe in the Holy Trinity. I'm a good person but I've made some terrible mistakes that are not good for my salvation.
The idea of being torn over this would be expected. You were raised a member, made some decisions which you no longer participate in the Church. As you have knowledge of principles of the gospel, this creates more turmoil as you understand, not fully, the concept of sealings and blessings in the afterlife pertaining to fathers and mothers. That is wonderful you are still a Christian (although as members we believe in the Godhead, not the "Holy Trinity").
According to your choices, as of now, it really doesn't matter if they are sealed to your ex-husband and to his new wife (I would say the same if the roles were reversed), it is actually better for them that they are sealed (such that they aren't denied any blessings of the covenant). An important scripture is found in Doctrine and Covenants 82: 10, "I, the Lord, am bound when ye do what I say; but when ye do not what I say, ye have no promise." If you are still continuing to follow the path you are choosing now, whether they are 8 or 18, it doesn't matter, but for them it does, especially if they could be partaking of the sealing covenant and promised blessings at an earlier age.
However, in light of "I'm a good person but I've made some terrible mistakes that are not good for my salvation," then begin making choices that will be good for your salvation. Exercise your faith unto the principle of repentance and return to the Lord so that he may pour out his blessings upon you. You are not lost to the Lord. There isn't any decision you have made (I would assume) that would cause you to forfeit being an heir of God.
3) Can anyone tell me how this is all going to work out? For me and for the kids? Am I completely insane and selfish for not wanting the kids to be sealed to him and to let them make that choice when they're 18? 
The only teaching we have regarding how these situations work out in the end is that all things are done by a God who knows all things and will work out every detail according to his knowledge, his love, his mercy, his grace, and his justice (remembering he (along with heavenly Mother) are perfect in these attributes).
Are you insane? No, the love a mother has for her children isn't insane. Selfish? Yes, if you are continue to walk the path you are currently, and don't have any desire to make a change to come back to the Church, then yes, it is a selfish desire. As the children being sealed to their father and his current wife will be a good thing for them, and it will have no affect on you in this life as these are afterlife blessings and promises. If you have desires to return to the fold, desires to live righteously that you could have your children sealed to you, then no, it isn't selfish, it is also a righteous desire -- and is to be expected, which is why all things are worked out by a God who knows all things.
***************************
Now, I could be wrong, but I don't think he needs your permission to have the children sealed to him, if he has full custody which it appears he does. I understand him reaching out is what the Church has requested, but I don't think permission is needed. If you want to know further on that matter, contact your local bishop for more information. If you have desire for your children to be sealed to you, then contact your local bishop, begin the path of repentance, otherwise think upon the children, as whether they are 18 or 8, it doesn't matter if you haven't made the decisions to come back the fold anyways, and a sealing in the temple wouldn't affect anything temporally. All temporal matters would remain as they are.

The first part takes on a little bit of irony. An individual is stating they are defending "truth" while ignoring what some would consider "truthful" statistics -- cause and effect. It doesn't appear truth is being defended in your posts.
Second, which post said a person was "bad" that you felt to come to Godless or anyones aide? The points, before you posted, were specific to "alcohol" being "poison," -- which it is -- nothing regarding individuals who choose to drink it (their prerogative), yet you feel to come to their aide when no one made any comment specifically toward individuals who drink alcohol. 

Yep, go Vidangel!
I kicked on half the filters and watched Mad Max Fury Road, and Deadpool.  I haven't seen the non-filtered versions, so I'm not sure here, but both movies made total sense and flowed just fine without the nudity, sexual banter, and gore.  
Gee - it's almost like that crap gets added in for reasons other than because they are necessary...

We're big fans of Vidangel.  I hope they get their lawsuits (with Disney, Lucas Films, etc.) settled and that it doesn't break their business model.
I'm so sick of the Goliath movie/cable TV industry and their antiquated business models, monopolies and back-room deals to try to inflate the prices of their products as much as possible and bend consumers to their will without really being in touch or caring what large segments of their customer base really want.  Really, if they cared about what their customers want, they should have been the ones who thought of and pioneered movie streaming as a customized experience based on what viewers do and don't want to see and hear.  The rating system that they impose with an all-or-nothing attitude is silly and way out of date.  We really do have the technology to make things much more available as well as giving the consumer a greater variety of choices in how they want to experience movies and TV.  For all their talk about artistic integrity, keeping the movie as the director envisioned it, etc... it's just all so much hot air.  It's really about making as much money as possible by whatever manipulative or compulsory means they can.  You only get the movie/TV episodes on OUR terms or not at all.  If they had their way, they'd charge you for every viewing just like the old movie theater days before TV.  Well technology has moved on... they haven't and don't want to... not for reasons of intellectual property, artistic integrity or whatever else... but for Cha-ching.  

How about hanging a picture of the nearest temple? You could take a trip to the nearest temple and walk on the grounds.

Pictures and music.
Photos/paintings of Christ, Temples, and similar items.
Uplifting music. It need not be the Tabernacle Choir (not a bad choice, but not the only choice, either), but be sure it's inspirational, whoever the performers are.
Even without children, be sure to have Family Home Evening, and a date night.
And don't forget Eowyn's advice.
Lehi